|
Batman is so unhappy to be there while Wonder Woman is in a good mood.
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
Proposition Joe posted:Yes I know, but still what possible story could you tell with Venom that doesn't involve Spider-Man? Does anyone actually want a movie with Venom fighting Carnage? Of course, I could also ask if anyone actually wants a Venom movie at all. Right now, in the comics, Venom's premise is "an alien superweapon that was bound to a government soldier who lost his legs in Iraq and who must struggle to keep the symboite under control while doing missions." It evolved to the point he's now part of the Guardians of the Galaxy but the core premise does not rely on Spider-Man at all. Even if you go back to original Venom, the premise of his own book is is "A dude who found an alien super suit and bonded with it and used it to become a Lethal Protector" which likewise doesn't rely on Spider-Man.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:Venom is basically Dark Spider-Man. A Venom movie without any association to Spider-Man would be like making uh... a Shadow the Hedgehog movie without Sonic in it. Venom is (one of several) Evil Spider-Man but that is largely because the guy began in Spider-Man rather than that he relies on Spider-Man thematically. Most Venom stories are about the struggle between the host and the symbiote and the fact that it influences them while granting them power. Even the original Spider-Man story with the suit was about that more than it was about anything else. It's easy to push it as a "all the power, none of the responsibility" idea but that's not at all mandatory for Venom, the bulk of whose stories were more about him using that power while dealing with having a literal brain-hungry parasite attached to him. He's been a hero or anti-hero longer than he's been a straight villain. If they're doing a straight movie, especially an R-Rated one, they're more likely to draw from that then they are his increasingly tenuous thematic connections to Spider-Man.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:I am really interested in seeing Slipknot on screen. The trailer has given us nothing other then he punches out some lady with zero context shown. I presume because that is basically all he has before his head explodes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Corek posted:Compilation of Zack Snyder's shifting explanations for why Superman killed Zod: Honestly that's all very confusing when the answer is "because he literally did it in the Zod story I was directly referencing, this doesn't really need explanation."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Timby posted:Case in point: Changing the ending of Watchmen from a giant squid wrecking New York to framing Doctor Manhattan, and the Internet losing its poo poo as a result. That was a legitimately bad change but not because it was different from the comics. People focused on the loss of squid instead of the fact that Manhattan-energy nuked Russia at the height of international tensions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Timby posted:Wait, what? I just re-watched it this past weekend and the setup of Manhattan works so much better. Dr. Manhattan is American. this is an inexorable fact of the character in the Snyder version and in the original comic. He is literally the cause of the current status quo and America's superweapon. Even though he leaves that doesn't mean everyone will suddenly forget that he was American or will take what happened at face value. He is effectively a living nuclear weapon. So when a major Russian city is nuked at the literal doomsday "the missiles are about to fly" point there is basically no reason whatsoever that it shouldn't be taken as a first strike and Russia should respond in kind before they have any chance to find out it happened across the world. Rather than preventing a nuclear apocalypse it should have triggered it. Guy A. Person posted:Didn't he bomb New York only or did they change it to make it several cities worldwide or something? He bombs multiple cities worldwide in the film, yeah. There are other changes which I don't really care for as much but they're not bad, they just change the context and tone of the film. (Using Manhattan changes the film to be more about fear of god than fear of the other and Nite Owl righteously fighting to avenge Rorschach's death instead of being complacent in the horrible act feels kind of toothless to me, but isn't necessarily wrong.) ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:New Civil War trailer is really good. I'm having a really hard time sympathizing with Captain America based off the trailers. Like as near as I can tell his argument amounts to "Well, this could go badly, so better not make any laws ever!" Hopefully the actual film plays it up better. Tony Starks' blanket 'everything is good" is pretty dumb too mind.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I remember when everyone was worried that it would be impossible to not make Cap unambiguously right. I don't think that was ever the concern. In both the comic and movie adaptation Cap is basically arguing that vigilantes with the power to shoot lasers from their hands should not be subject to oversight because bad things might happen, which is such a weak argument that in the comic they had to make Tony Stark into Literally Hitler because otherwise they'd have to question their status quo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:It looks like the Pro-Registration side's position will be "Sign on with us or get locked up in an underwater superprison" and I can see Cap having issues with that That sounds like it's having the comic problem again but I guess that's sort of inevitable. It's kind of weird to introduce your new Spider-Man as the dude trying to beat up Captain America to help establish an underwater Gitmo but I suppose they could twist that around in the film.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:Speaking of, if Thor is not in this, does that mean that in the movie time line that Thor: Ragnarok is happening at around the same time as Civil War? Neither Hulk nor Thor are in it (or at least not a big presence) so it would probably make sense for it to happen during their wacky road trip.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
HIJK posted:Wait a goddamn minute we're getting another Spider-Man trilogy? Because Spider-Man is one of the most profitable and successful superheroes in the world.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Is it alright if I appreciate Man Of Steel on a technical level/filmmaking level but never want to watch it because I just don't like Superman as a character? It's rather silly because "Superman as a character" is defined in so many different ways that rejecting him just because his name is Superman doesn't make a lot of sense.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I actually really hate the "Supes did 9/11" sentiment as well as the Thunderbolt Ross scene at the beginning of this new trailer implying that super people are responsible for disasters they get involved with. It strikes me as going up to a firefighter and saying "gee you seem to be at the scene of a lot of burning buildings". The idea seems to be that they're wrong for doing that though. like Batman is blaming Superman for it because Superman is of the same race as the guy really responsible and he happened to be nearby. oddium posted:does civil war spiderman have mechanical web shooters or human web glands. the web glands, are good Web shooters, they're visible in the trailer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 23:01
|
|
" and walk out of the room.
|
wyoming posted:
Nah, the Thunderbolts are a team who appeared after a big event where most of the heroes died. They were secretly supervillains trying to take advantage of it for a variety of reasons and it actually was an excellent book. Since then Thunderbolts has basically been varying degree of "Marvel's version of the Suicide Squad."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Luminous Obscurity posted:They're successful because they took a risk with Iron Man and have been playing it safe ever since, I'm not questioning their financial success I'm questioning that they have 'creative and artistic integrity.' I think it's pretty unreasonable to say something like Iron Man 3 has no creative or artistic integrity. Regardless of your own personal feelings about the film doing an Iron Man film featuring minimal Iron Man Suit where the suit is treated like a diposable toy the protagonist needs to get around and the villain is an explicit criticism of both America cultural in general and a lesser criticism of fans and arguably even the studio. You can argue it failed and you're free to do so but pretending like it was just a random thing they shat out without care is pretty disingenuous.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Compared to the MCU, this is actually true. Neither Marvel or DC are doing particularly great here. Black Panther is announced, Wonder Woman is announced, neither have come out and both are being debuted in someone else's film. It's not a case of either/or in this case, both need to shape up. DC having fewer films doesn't mean a lot when they have a long history of films not doing it. ... that said, is there some reason people keep going "MoS was the first and only DCU film" and ignore Green Lantern. Does the fact it failed suddenly mean it doesn't count as an attempt?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The fact that it's not part of the DCU. They're doing another Green Lantern film in like 2020 but Ryan Reynolds will not be part of it. Yeah but like... they intended it to be, it just failed and so they're pretending it didn't happen. When people are bringing up the Nolan trilogy it feels weird for everyone to forget that DC had another film it was just something everyone is pretending didn't happen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Equeen posted:Sucide Squad has a black man as a main character and four female main characters (two of them are non-white and another is played by an openly bisexual woman. A movie about dangerous supervillians is more diverse than most of the MCU. That's actually an interesting element. Suicide Squad is a more diverse film but it's also a film about criminals and villains. This kinda plays directly into the Hollywood cliche. That doesn't mean DC is wrong or bad for doing or or anything, just that it's not exactly breaking the mold either. I think when people say a female-lead film or a black-lead film they mean one about a heroic character rather than, at best, a somewhat heroic criminal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Burkion posted:This is a really stupid point to draw hairs over. No, it really isn't. The major criticism of black-lead roles in films is that they can only be cast as criminals, soldiers, or celebrities (almost exclusively rap or sports stars). Suicide Squad continues the trend and while it's better than no representation it still is continuing tha trend. That isn't 'drawing hairs,' it's an ongoing criticism of Hollywood. It's similar to how an Asian lead is almost exclusively being cast as a martial artist. It's better than no representation at all but still pigeonholing. MacheteZombie posted:I'm willing to bet part of Suicide Squad will be informing the audience about how some of these characters became villains because of their circumstances instead of by choice. The only one admitting to loving crime for the sake of crime being the pasty white, green haired fella. Which is also a good thing and should be praised but doesn't really change the fact it's the norm. It is fine to both praise them for actually having diversity and pointing out their diversity still includes things like a Japanese woman with a katana named Katana. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Mar 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Yeah, as said above- and it's still ridiculous that out of all of the studios that have had Marvel properties, Elektra is the only attempt. That's a bit disingenuous. Going "they tried in the past" and ignoring that Marvel has also headlined stuff like Jessica Jones or Agent Carter is a bit weird. (Likewise DC has Supergirl, although that's not the 'shared universe' bullshit but I don't give a drat.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Darko posted:DC has Catwoman. It also has Steel! Remember Steel guys?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:I'm six years late on this but I finally watched Watchmen and I loved it. Probably my favorite comic book movie. Thematically dense, interesting characters, great setting and tone. Extremely my poo poo. What's the general consensus on it? It's mixed. Generally a lot of the criticism of it relies on the fact that the comic adaptation is well respected and some people dislike the film either because it changed things and change is bad or because it changed things and that muddles or alters the themes. The people who like it generally praise the direction/costuming/ect.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Electromax posted:I pre-nominate Gal Godot for Glamour's Woman of the Year 2017. That is the extended cut and yeah, it really doesn't help the film. To be honest it doesn't really help the comic either, it's a thematically interesting element that takes forever to pay off.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:I read today that Chris Nolan told Snyder he made that movie too soon, and that is extremely on point. This is kind of hard to argue with. Watchmen is kind-of-sort-of a commentary on the movies but it doesn't have a lo to draw from. A Watchmen made today would have a lot more to say because 'modern comic movies' is a more cohesive ground to target than the weird mishmash of stuff that existed prior to Watchmen
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:Buddy Crossovers are a sorely underrepresented cornerstone of the superhero genre outside of comics I would pay any amount of money to see Blue Beetle and Booster Gold.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:The tone is completely flat, there's no energy, everything about it just screams perfunctory and arbitrary. It's gross. He sounds sheepish and awkward which seems to be the point.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The delivery is fine in itself, it just doesn't work in a dramatic zoom-in shot with intense, pounding music behind it. I assumed that was the point. It's being built up a dramatic moment and he awkwardly goes "Uh... hi?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:He's basically just Marvel's version of Shaft, right? Dude wrongly convicted of a crime, gets superpowers through a prison experiment, becomes a Hero for Hire tend to be the summary of his situation
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Burkion posted:I think it does. It resembles a Batman suit and most of the things you linked as being similar are only similar in that many Batman designs share them. It is an explicit direct reference to the DKR costume and any similarities it has to Adam West are only in that both are Batman costumes. It doesn't actually look anything like Adam's West suit except in that it is a Batman suit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Jesus Christ this again I understand your point. Your point is poorly thought out and makes no sense because the actual comparisons between the suits are so slim and barely existant that trying to compare it to the Adam West suit is stretching beyond the limit. They have only the most superficial similarities. Like what you actually seem to be saying is "I'm glad this Batman has more cloth-like armor instead of military body armor" which had nothing to do with Adam West's suit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
You really can't do Civil War with "we're unclear who is right" because it's not really a morally grey situation, no matter how much they try to argue it is. That's the entire reason the comic version just keeps making Iron Man eviler and eviler because it's literally the only way to possibly cast moral ambiguity on the situation, and even then it's just "Well, Captain America is on the side NOT siding with Literal Nazis..." Maybe I'll be shocked and they'll do a better job of presenting it in the film but what it looks like is the argument is basically "Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to do whatever you want without oversight" vs "But what about NAZIS and I want to make out with Bucky!" And if Iron Man is wrong it is because of Nazis and then everyone will Godwin's Law every argument because see, if we try to do anything but be completely unregulated than the Nazis will kill our families. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Mar 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
I hear uncut Guyver is illegal in some parts of the south.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
HIJK posted:There's also the common mistake people make that length of text = quality arguments. This is the only thing that really annoys me. I like seeing effort posts. I hate when "someone made an effortpost, therefore their opinion is unarguable and your are obligated you agree with it" becomes a thing. Someone making an argument doesn't make their argument persuasive even if they use a lot of screenshots or text. I read the entire Transformers thing, I'm glad they made it, I just didn't find it convincing and it's tiring to be told that I MUST be convinced by it. It's the problem with a lot of criticism on this subforum. Rather than being a point for different analysis of a work it just becomes "this non-standard analysis is inherently right and we are smarter for having it."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
I enjoy MoS more if I just assume Jonathan Kent is supposed to be a shithead. In retrospect a lot of what I disliked about the film was him and once I make that assumption it flows a lot better for me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
McCloud posted:And that was the first, and only time,Superman killed anyone. Hahaha, no. Like Superman fully and openly attempted to kill Doomsday and upon his death he thought he did so. Doomsday revived (because of course he did) but Superman freely and openly decided that killing him was the only way to put him down. Mysteriously Doomsday is the dude they're using for the sequel and almost certainly will have to be killed to be stopped unless they throw him into space or something. And it's not even a case of Superman going "Well, this is a mindless monster." It's a plot point in the original comic that it is intelligent enough to understand and target people, takes delight in pain and suffering, and can even speak. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Technically nothing before 2011 is the "real" Supes either. Nah, that guy is still around, he and his wife survived and have been hiding out in the new universe apparently. They have their own book and everything.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
McCloud posted:True, but nu52 supes has the advantage of not being a murderer, so there's that. Tell that to Dr. Light.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
The weirdest thing about Apocalypse is like it's 90% Normal X-Men Movie Stuff and then there is Psylocke just poppin' in to be the closest thing to a literal comic character translated onscreen besides Deadpool.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
"AGE OF ULTRON: It exists."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 01:06
|
|